مرکزی صفحہ Preventive Medicine Everybody's talkin' ‘bout a new way of reportin’ observational studies
مسئلے کے بارے میں بتائیےThis book has a different problem? Report it to us
Check Yes if Check Yes if Check Yes if Check Yes if
you were able to open the file
the file contains a book (comics are also acceptable)
the content of the book is acceptable
Title, Author and Language of the file match the book description. Ignore other fields as they are secondary!
Check No if Check No if Check No if Check No if
- the file is damaged
- the file is DRM protected
- the file is not a book (e.g. executable, xls, html, xml)
- the file is an article
- the file is a book excerpt
- the file is a magazine
- the file is a test blank
- the file is a spam
you believe the content of the book is unacceptable and should be blocked
Title, Author or Language of the file do not match the book description. Ignore other fields.
Change your answer
Preventive Medicine 45 (2007) 245 – 246 www.elsevier.com/locate/ypmed This Month in Preventive Medicine Everybody's talkin' ‘bout a new way of reportin’ observational studies In this issue of Preventive Medicine, we publish the guidelines of a new research initiative aimed at “Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology” and abbreviated STROBE (von Elm et al., 2007). In contrast to what its acronym may suggest, STROBE is meant to shed perpetual light, not just flashes, on the nature and content of observational research. Like its predecessors the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT, www.consort-statement.org) and the STAndards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy studies (STARD, www.stard-statement.org), STROBE is the third chapter in the continuing saga that originated from the frustrations of meta-analysts with the heterogeneity and incompleteness of study reports for, respectively, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), evaluation of diagnostic tests, and observational studies. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews have become an essential mode of compiling epidemiological and, more generally, medical knowledge. Because new health-related knowledge never stems from a single study, it is the researcher's responsibility to provide the information necessary so that their individual study results can be integrated into future meta-analyses or systematic reviews. Our experience with CONSORT has been positive. It serves as a well-thought-out checklist for both contributors and reviewers, without imposing unwarranted constraints. We have not had the opportunity so far to experiment with STARD. Editorial convenience is one reason why we welcome STROBE and will propose to our Editorial Board that it should become part of PM's guidelines as a systematic requirement for our contributors. At the very least, we see it as a very useful tool. For example, our readers would be amazed to learn how often we have to remind authors to simply mention where and when their study was co; nducted. There is also a deeper reason that gives STROBE its historical significance. We view it as one more important step in the convergence of epidemiology and medicine that has been occurring since the 1960s. Clinical decision analysis (CDA) has contributed to familiarizing a generation of mostly young physicians with difficult concepts such as sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. “Evidence-Based-Medicine” (EBM) has further stimulated the curiosity of clinicians for study designs, measures of effect, and assessment of interaction. However, epidemiology still has many features that have not been fully integrated into clinical research, in particular those related to observational studies. Cohort and case-control studies with their related biases and management of confounding represent the greatest theoretical and technical wealth of epidemiology. The current hierarchy of evidence for treatment efficacy, which values the results of RCTs ahead of those of both cohort and case-control studies, the lowest level being the clinician’s opinion (www.cebm. net/index.aspx?o=1025), has been widely misinterpreted as a hierarchy of design validity, which sets a questionable boundary between good and bad science, with experiments on one side and observational studies on the other. We think it harms a good idea like EBM to reduce it to such superficial application. In focusing on the thorough reporting of observational studies, STROBE should provide clinical research with a new impetus toward valuing them. A few years from now, 0091-7435/$ - see front matter © 2007 Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.09.004 246 This Month in Preventive Medicine many of the current controversies regarding observational vs. experimental studies will become outdated (Concato et al., 2000; Pocock and Elbourne, 2000; Benson and Hartz, 2000) and will be considered as neo-classical examples of past intellectual rigidity. The complexity of the phenomena that medical and health clinicians are dealing with is so great that it would be naïve to posit that one type of evidence is superior for all of them. As stated by Susser, 30 years ago, “Differences in strength of inference from experimental and observational studies are relative, not absolute, as anyone who has conducted large experimental trials will know, and to test their validity requires that we bring to bear all possible criteria of judgment to all the data” (Susser, 1977, p. 12). It is crucial for clinicians to develop their ability to integrate evidence from difference sources, valuing each source for its specific strengths and weaknesses. Because the progressive convergence of epidemiology and medicine has been paved with acronyms (CDA, EBM, CONSORT, STARD, STROBE), we propose to add “AMBER” (for “Appropriate Methods-Based Evaluation and Research”). AMBER posits that the relevant epistemological demarcation is between science and techniques. Research techniques serve scientific thinking and not vice versa. A given technique can be totally valid in one context and inappropriate in another. For example, a randomized clinical trial can be the optimal experimental design for testing the efficacy of a drug, but completely inadequate when specific populations cannot be marshalled into the constraints of an RCT or unacceptable for determining harm from exposure or treatment. Indeed, for seeking new information on the adverse effects of treatment, observational studies are the best if not the only source of evidence. We expect the new way of reportin’ observational studies that everybody's talkin' 'bout to be more than just a set of walk right in, sit right down instructions. STROBE should contribute to a fuller convergence of epidemiology and medicine. References Benson, K., Hartz, A.J., 2000. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N. Engl. J. Med. 342, 1878–1886. Concato, J., Shah, N., Horwitz, R.I., 2000. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N. Engl. J. Med. 342, 1887–1892. Pocock, S.J., Elbourne, D.R., 2000. Randomized trials or observational tribulations? N. Engl. J. Med. 342, 1907–1909. Susser, M., 1977. Judgement and causal inference: criteria in epidemiologic studies. Am. J. Epidemiol. 105, 1–15. von Elm, E., Altman, D.G., Egger, M., Pocock, S.J., Gøtzsche, P.C., Vandenbroucke, J.P., for the STROBE Initiative, 2007. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Prev. Med. 45, 247–251. Alfredo Morabia, M.D., Ph.D. Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, Queens College–CUNY, 163-03 Horace Harding Expressway, Flushing, NY 11365, USA Michael C. Costanza, Ph.D. Geneva University Hospitals, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, 25, Rue Micheli-du-Crest, CH-1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland E-mail address: Preventive.Medicine@qc.cuny.edu.